February 8, 2010

The smugness and condescension of these women is irritating as hell, but please watch, so we can talk about this:

There's no balance, with Meghan McCain in lieu of Elisabeth Hasselbeck. McCain is way too eager to win the love of liberals. She says:

Congressman Tancredo went on TV, and he was the first opening speaker, and he said, "People who could not even spell the word 'vote' or say it in English put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House whose name is Barack Hussein Obama." And then he went on to say that people at the convention should have to pass literacy tests in order to be able to vote in this country, which is the same thing that happened in the 50s to prevent African-Americans from voting. It's innate racism, and I think it's why young people are turned off by this movement. And I'm sorry, but revolutions start with young people, not with 65-year-old people talking about literacy tests and people who can't say the word 'vote' in English.

Now, the funny thing to me about that is, if you think racism is bad, you should also reject the idea that ideas are inborn. And you should reject categorizing people by groups like young and old. People are individuals, and they are what they develop into as they live and act in this world, not what was programmed into their genes. Maybe McCain doesn't know the meaning of the word "innate." Maybe she meant something like "ingrained." She's borderline incoherent, and that's almost as annoying as her need for liberal love (which she's not going to get!).

And, by the way, I think it was foolish of Tancredo to bring up literacy tests. They were used in some parts of the country in the past to keep black people (and poor white people) from voting. There are better ways to say that people were dumb/uninformed, and that's why they voted for Obama, if that's what Tancredo meant to say. Maybe he did intend to resonate with racism, or he has fond feelings about the bad old days. Who knows? In any case, in complaining about people being dumb, he was dumb. Whether he's also suffering from racism is another matter. But if he is, it's not innate racism — which makes him more responsible for it, not less.

144 comments:

I was wondering if Althouse would mention Tancredo's remarks about literacy, after praising other parts of his speech.

Just my opinion, but there's no reason to watch The View. There are way too many other things to do during that hour. Of course, I feel that same way about talk radio, and Good Morning America, and pretty much any other nexus of politics, celebrity and entertainment.

There is an old myth or story floating around. Back in the day a Black man attempted to walk into a polling place to vote. A deputy sheriff stopped him. He asked theBlack man if he could read. The man said yes.

The deputy handed him a copy of a Chinese News Paper written in characters. "What's this paper say boy"

As a progressive, I find Megan McCain irritating. She's only asked to comment because of who her old man is and she really doesn't add anything to the conversation. [The most creepy of these interviews with her was when she was on Bill Maher's show and he stared at her chest the whole time.]

the past to keep black people (and poor white people) from voting I very much doubt that it was used to keep poor white people from voting. I'm pretty sure it was used to keep blacks (even those who were literate) from voting. Whites were allowed to vote without challenge.

Althouse, I agree with most of your arguments, but wanted correct you when you said literacy tests were used against "poor white people," which is just factually untrue.

Literacy test were used in certain states, predominately in the south, but they were subjectively used against black people to prevent them specifically from voting to bypass the 15th Amendment. I think its wrong to give the false impression that "poor white people" were prevented from voting when they were not.

I've been a long-time reader and occasional (very occasional) commenter at Althouse. I don't comment much because, generally speaking, there are others here who do a better, more coherent job of stating my position.I don't mean any insult by this, but I'm really puzzled by your attitude toward Sarah Palin. You seem inordinately hostile towards her, while admitting she embodies the feminist attributes you find most admirable. Could you expand on your reservations about her? I have to say I find her at least as appealing, and far more experienced than Barack Obama, and I wonder why you (a law professor!) seem to have a knee-jerk negative reaction to her.The "law professor" part was a joke, BTW.

Also, speaking as an adult white male, shorts rule. You wear long pants for a whole summer and then we can talk.

Tanc is of Italian descent. Few Ethnic-Americans have much love for those who applied literacy tests; he's not some Bubba yearning for the days of old. He's just worried about cultural downfall. And, of course, he should have said it in a better way.

At least one MSM organization half-heartedly tried to ask McCain about it, but most of them just ignored the fact that someone who clearly has divided loyalties was advising a U.S. presidential candidate.

But, the MSM isn't your daddy. And, despite the fact that Malkin (and I) wanted people to go to McCain's events and ask him about this, only a couple did and their questions were weak. When, really pressing him on the issue could have driven him out of the race and - by giving us a stronger GOP candidate - might have prevented BHO from becoming president.

Beside me and Malkin, can anyone find even a single major blogger encouraging people to go "cross-examine" McCain over this issue? (So, why are you reading them then?)

Well, when you bring up literacy tests for voting, you are kind of asking for a richly deserved leftist shit barrage.

What I want to know is why both sides in politics are convinced that all the real, actual idiots in this country are voting solely for the other side. What's up with that? On the right, it's this idea that the dumb urban poor and lazy immigrants. On the left, it's this belief that a bunch of dumb hicks and tasteless suburban dwellers vote Republican.

she'd like to model or maybe actor start a magazinebefore she signs any contractsI think she better learn to readbut in her dreams she's the queen of the fashion regime...you ask me do I love you...does the pope live in the woods?quod erat demonstrandum, baby.(ooo you speak French)

she's an airheadstungun and mace - Kharmann Ghia plates say "Lost in Space"she's an airheadthousands in trust - cusp Aquarius - get seriousshe's an airheadtinted contacts don't change the fact that black is blackshe's an airheadand while I'm impressed with the size of her chestshe's not an intellectual giant....

sweet and low and oh-solittle Ms. Dora Jarresafe sex and fishnetsand could you walk me to my carshe's losing faith in a world that is out of controlso she's gonna nix politics,she's taking up volleyball! volleyball! why?

former law student: McCain Jr. is - to the extent that she knows what she's saying - not a "moderate" in some ways. In fact, in some ways, she a McCain Sr. are extremists, such as through their support for comprehensive immigration reform, aka amnesty. While the political class has had great success as selling that as a moderate position, it's anything but that considering the impact that it would have.

Liz Cheney is kind of cool. She has something of her father's unblinking focus, but she presents her arguments with some warmth and humor. As Republican progeny go, she's the pick of the litter. Meghan is too diffuse and eager to please. That's probably why she's on The View, and not Fox. She's the Alan Colmes of Republican progeny.

It's nothing we all don't already know, but it's discouraging that such mediocrities as Meghan McCain get public attention. I suppose it's because she's got a combination of two things that gain attention - blonde hair, and a father that's a former Presidential candidate. What reasonably intelligent person, left or right, cares what Meghan McCain thinks about anything?

But I guess that's life. Life does not seem to be organized in such a way that the most deserving people always or even often get the attention. It's full of mediocrities basking in their 15 minutes in the spotlight while life kind of chaotically lurches forward one way or another. I guess the world is always going to be largely populated with mediocrities (by definition, I suppose) and its governance guided by the desires and whims of mediocrities and a person just has to accept that and try to carve out some spaces for excellence in one's private sphere.

And yes, as a conservative I am quite willing to agree that Palin is a mediocrity too.

Mostly what I wanted to say has been said - Tancredo was obviously talking about illegal immigration and to suggest otherwise (as Megan McCain did) is pathological - so I'll just ask again:

Can y'all let the race thing go yet?

You keep trying to find a racist under the bed somewhere, and they ain't showing up, so how about we give up the search, huh? If they show up, we'll know 'em when we see 'em, promise.

And BTW, if y'all really care about protecting black people so fucking much, I know a certain blogger of the negro persuasion with a big-ass "donate" button to the right of his site,...shit y'all, don't talk the talk but walk the walk.

Crack -- I read something just the other day by a highfalutin professor saying that Americans are racist to the core for being happy about the feeling that the election of Obama is a milestone for race relations in this country. The problem, you understand, is that people are thinking about race, which makes them obviously racist.

However, this professor was not racist even though he was writing about race and saying that people are racist for thinking about race.

It's possible to believe, as I do, that individuals have many inborn characteristics without thinking that they correlate to race. Once you've raised a bunch of kids, especially twins, with not one of them ending up much like the others, you realize how much of us is innate.

Yet another in the very long line of examples of the sheer, mind-numbing stupidity of the "partiers" is how they've tried to push back against the "racist" label. They've done it in a way that hurts them and helps their enemies. But, of course, "hurts us and helps our enemies" should be the partiers' motto.

P.S. How could you tell the stage at TeaPartyNation was level? Because GlennReynolds, EricOdom, and all the rest were drooling out of both sides of their mouths.

"If we are going to limit the franchise, I say limit it to taxpayers."

I guess they don't teach the 24th Amendment in state schools any more.

Oh, sure, the literal text of the Constitution forbids requiring a tax payment to vote.

But then again the literal text of the Constitution also forbids Medicare, Social Security, farm subsidies, most of the Environmental Protection Agency's agenda, gun bans, national health care, federal funding of schools, government affirmative action programs, and Keynesian stimulus spending. You just have to learn to look past the parts of the Constitution that explicitly say "no, you can't do that", and learn to see the penumbras the hold the *real* meaning of the document. :)

That being said, I don't agree with requiring tax payments to vote. But I do think that we should have a third house of Congress with the sole power (and no power other than) to vote "yea" or "nay" on spending and borrowing proposed by the other two houses. Votes for members of that House should be weighted in proportion to taxes paid. So everyone has an equal right to say what the government can do, but your right to demand that it be paid for would be based on how much you're personally contributing to the public good.

Seven Machos said... So, not much is innate. Right? Otherwise, they'd end up much the same, born of the same womb and raised in the same household.

No, each child has its innate program that determines its personality and they way it responds to things from birth. "Born of the same womb" doesn't figure into it much. As your kids start to grow up, you look at their personalities and what sort of things they're drawn to and you wonder, "Where the hell did that come from?"

NEWSWEEK: "How do researchers test a 6-month-old? They show babies photographs of faces. Katz found that babies will stare significantly longer at photographs of faces that are a different race from their parents, indicating they find the face out of the ordinary. Race itself has no ethnic meaning per se—but children's brains are noticing skin-color differences and trying to understand their meaning." http://www.newsweek.com/id/214989/page/3

This [study] would seem to indicate that "racism" is innate. That's not what the researchers were looking for, but that's what they found (which they immediately try to rationalize away for the sake of [enforced] diversity, i.e., liberalism).

Speaking of liberalism, i.e., The View - kindly recall when Whoppi Goldberg appeared on The Factor with Bill O'Reilly; she stated flat out - in defense of her own political illiteracy - that she didn't need facts, because she "f-e-e-l-s."

Not to suggest that political illiteracy is restricted by race alone, but it's certainly an empirical starting point. Especially where liberalism is innate, or acquired through the social pressures of liberal education.

Caryn* (reaping the benefits of decades of opportunity and, as a side benefit of that, opportunism) and Meghan (who's just at the start of all that) seem to me to be rather a perfect coupling, even a rather perfect storm of coupling.

That said, there is the problem that Caryn*--despite all of her awful political (and factual-gaffe) whatevers--has terrific amounts of talent in other areas whether she puts herself on the shelf or not.

Meghan, on the other hand, doesn't have either terrific amounts of talent or decades of her *own* experience on which to fall back.

All in all, the situations of both Goldberg and McCain--identified as part of "The View" women--strikes me as sad all the way around.___

*Whoopie didn't start out as "Whoopie." Which--of course!--I'm assuming most people know.

When Meghan McCain referred to "innate racism," I don't think she meant to say that racist attitudes are innate. I think she was trying to say that the use of literacy tests for voter qualification is innately racist (I think "inherently" would have worked better). This, itself, sounds like a racist view, but I guess the thought is that even a uniformly administered literacy test would disproportionately disqualify blacks because of the poor quality of inner city schools.

I think Tancredo is a xenophobic hatemonger, but in his defense he called not for "literacy tests" but for "civics literacy tests", which one might assume could be administered in languages other than English, or even orally for the illiterate.

I think its wrong to give the false impression that "poor white people" were prevented from voting when they were not.

Wrong. Literacy tests were used to prevent blacks AND undesirable whites from voting. Growing up in South Carolina in the late 50's and the 60's, several of my relatives (by no means all, thankfully) spoke derisively of our "white trash relations" in Georgia and Alabama who would vote "with the niggers" if they could. There was no way those white trash relatives were going to pass the literacy tests and I heard family discussions that included several people who had not voted because of being given and failing such a test. Much of the white trash was prevented from participating in basic Southern civic life including churches, courts,legal representation and commerce. Once when I played with a cousin I was visiting near Savannah, Georgia, we were told by a store owner to not use the white drinking fountain. I told my Mom when we got back to my cousin's house, and she was furious and took to the manager and made him apologize to me and my cousin, but he never looked at my cousin. I knew it was because my cousin and family were considered white trash, though we weren't.

While literacy tests were plainly meant to prevent the black vote, it is plain wrong to give the impression that no "poor white people" were prevented from voting.

Contrary to fls, Tancredo is a marginal figure in the Tea Party movement, as well as the Republican Party, and Meghan McCain is a moderate like Lindsey Graham is.

Baba Wawa brought on Tancredo to say something inflammatory and he obliged. That they have Meghan McCain in place of Mrs. Hasselbeck simply makes the echo chamber complete. Considering the intellectual heft of Joy Behar and Wifti Goldberg, she's right at home.

As for Tom Tancredo, I am not a fan. He says stuff that does not help conservatism, just to promote himself. I am for immigration, to a point, I am against uncontrolled illegal immigration. There is a big difference.

I am for immigration, to a point, I am against uncontrolled illegal immigration. There is a big difference.

Well the problem is liberals don't see the difference. To them allowing 10-15 million illegals coming across the border at will is perfectly ok and any attempt to obstruct that is RACIST. When the mainstream liberals shout down any call for controlling the borders as racist then guys like Tancredo get the attention.

Enlighten me, please. What is racist/evil/wrong with requiring a voter to have a basic knowledge of civics? The branches and basic responsibilities of each branch of government? Along with this I would also require everyone, everyone to pay some income tax so that they have skin in the game.

I watched The View clip. It is interchangeable with every other political discussion they have ever had.

Having the McCain viewpoint is interesting, but the McCain Camp has been repeatedly giving that stump speech in every venue possible since they lost the election. But it has had little effect on Palin.Mostly it has cemented disaffection with McCain. (But gosh, what a 'maverick'!)

I thought Sarah Palin seemed somewhat hectoring in that part of the speech, almost nagging. Made me wince, actually. A little too Hillary for me.

I am not hitching my horse to any such star, in any event. Small government simply requires a rigorous process to reject the tendency for government to expand inexorably. Whether she can do that by leading a movement dedicated to that principle is uncertain.

But a Obama has headed is entirely the other direction, and deserves every possible criticism that can be put to him.

1. The Crack Emcee said... Tancredo was obviously talking about illegal immigration and to suggest otherwise (as Megan McCain did) is pathological Actually, Tancredo does want a "civics literacy test" for all, not just for recent immigrants (check out the second Word document here). He argued in his speech that the reason Obama was elected was because we don't have such a test. I think this is illustrative of Seven's point that both sides believe that the idiots are only voting for the other side.

2. Seven put it concisely and best: "when you bring up literacy tests for voting, you are kind of asking for a richly deserved leftist shit barrage." Saying "I am not racist, I just wish we had civics literacy test." is similar to saying (a) "we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years" if we had elected Strom Thurmond or (b) I'm not racist, I just wish the Supreme Court hadn't screwed up Commerce Clause jurisprudence. Fine arguments in the abstract, but without a ton of caveats and acknowledgements, you are basically inviting the fight.

3. When I first started reading about the Tea Party folks I thought it was more of a Ross Perot type movement (e.g. fiscally conservative, get spending under control or we are screwed in the long run). What I heard of the Tea Party convention it sounds more like a Buchananite movement. No, Hoosier demanding fiscal responsibility does not equal mean spirited. But I heard very little about fiscal responsibility (I don't think promoting tax cuts and unspecified discretionary spending cuts is being serious about fiscal responsibility). I am sure somewhere in the convention there were a lot of such discussions but that is not what the coverage of the convention suggests. (By way of disclosure, I did not follow the convention too closely and I got most of my news from the local paper, local news, WSJ, Althouse, Sullivan and Volokh during the convention.)

The Tancredo comments are creepy. Isn't he a big "protect the border" guy? That's probably where all that comes from.

The View gets more cringe-worthy as time goes on. I love how Barbara Walters always presents her opinion in a very slow, guarded, way--as if we will believe she is being purely objective. She's always sticking in these bogus qualifiers, but her political stance is obvious.

The worst was when she talked about how "scary" all the crurent "division" and "rage" is. As if those on the left were gracious and well-behaved under Bush! sheesh.

Joy is without a doubt the dumbest person short of Larry King on television. To see Joy Behar mock Sarah Palin's intellectual gifts is to witness stupidity on stilts, stubborn stupidity on a pogo stick. Smug and stupid. Bad dumb and an argument in favor of re instituting the literacy test.

Meghan, Meghan, Meghan...ahh, the arrogance of youth...thinking that revolutions can only be started by the young. She really needs to go in person to a tea party protest rally and soak up how angry and energized older folks are.

Meghan McCain comes across as a ditzy airhead. She fits right in with the other ladies on The View. I think though that McCain dumbs herself down. She also seems to congratulate herself for being outrageous and young. And she flaunts her sexuality. Trying to sex up to attract young Republicans? Unfortunately for Meghan, the future of the Republican Party now appears to be more with the Tea Party movement--not the moderate, liberal-leaning McCain -type Republican.

so the ladies on the view and megan mccain are not fans of sarah palin ... so what. its a chat show. their views are of course going to come out. They dont like Sarah's rhetoric ... a lot of people don't.

and on megan mccain on 'innate racism,' I wonder if she thinks the Tea Party movement was in part born out of racist ideology. She seemed to be contradicting the notion that real movements can be led by persons other than the young.

It seems to me that Megan McCain has more of a need to be relevant to people in her age group as opposed to liberals. Younger people just are not fans of the staunch political positions and the harsh rhetoric .... she's part of that generation and trying to walk that line ..

martha, i think you're right that the future of the republican party is not with the politics of john mccain. i hope it is with the tea partyers though, because that would ensure democratic control of the executive branch for many years.

on megan -- i think its unfair to suggest she's trying to use her sexuality to attract young republicans. she's not a paid spokeswoman of the repubs; she's just a writer and blogger and i dont know of any particular guidelines for their clothing in the way there might be on say a FOX or CNN.

As for cult of personality, I have yet to hear anyone refer to Mrs. Palin as a sort of God, or paint pictures of her walking on water, or make the kids in their 2nd grade class sing stupid songs praising her.

As for no experience, lesse, mayor of one of the biggest towns in Alaska, member of the state gas commission, governor - in a state where the governor actually has some power. And never voted "present" in her life, as far as anyone can tell.

The Tancredo comments are creepy. Isn't he a big "protect the border" guy?

Tancredo grew up in Colorado. I know Colorado. Hispanics fill the lower socioeconomic strata in the way blacks do in other parts of the US. Teachers don't expect them to do well in school. The expectation is that they will drop out, take a menial job, and start making a bunch of babies.

I can imagine the young Tancredo, swarthy, with a name full of vowels, constantly being mistaken for or teased about being Hispanic. Thus he's had to take pains to distance himself from Hispanics his whole life.

Actually, Tancredo does want a "civics literacy test" for all, not just for recent immigrants- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Enlighten me, please. What is racist/evil/wrong with requiring a voter to have a basic knowledge of civics? The branches and basic responsibilities of each branch of government?

Would you want one written by Barbara Boxer? Be careful what you wish for.

Along with this I would also require everyone, everyone to pay some income tax so that they have skin in the game.

Sounds like someone here would fail Babs' civics literacy test. My advice is to work to repeal the 24th Amendment, or move to Galt's Gulch.

Can we stop pretending its still 1965? Its 2010 and there's nothing racist about a literary test to vote. Its subject to abuse but so is everything.

This constant use of "racism" to attack anyone who uses the "wrong" label or word is becoming crazy and bizarre. Had Tancrado used the label "Knowledge test" its OK but "Literary Test" means he hates black people. Uh OK.....

Speaking of the etymology of surnames: There are no Tancredos listed in the Italian telephone directory, while 1504 people named Tancredi listed. A little research shows that Tancredo is the Spanish spelling of the Italian Tancredi (King of Sicily). So Tom Tancredo, the anti-immigration activist, himself has a Spanish surname.

If we were ever to limit the franchise further, my vote would be to disfranchise government employees. Clear conflict of interest.

This really is a problem, and I wish that it were so simple to fix, but just like race, sex, education, etc., you can't discriminate in voting on the basis of employment, and, in particular, exclude civil servants on the public dole. But we should be able to.

One of the big problems that states like CA face is that much of their legislature has been captured by the public employees and their unions. The result has been out of control headcount, salary, benefits, and retirement growth in the public sector, abetted by the legislators captured by those same public servants.

And, you can see this to some extent at the national level, esp. in N. VA and MD. Their representatives seem willing to vote for more government, higher salaries, etc., at a cost to those working in the productive sector. Not surprisingly, government employees got a nice raise last year, and headcount is up there, despite the worst recession in 60 years.

I agree with Bruce here. In California, wage and benefit negotiations between government and the government employee unions basically consist of the Democratic Party talking to itself. (Spending reform resembles a dieter thinking, "I probably shouldn't buy this, but I deserve a little indulgence once in a while.")

Arnold tried to do an endrun around the Democrat-controlled legislature, by proposing several good ballot propositions which would have reined in spending. But the unions felt threatened, and opened their warchests to bash Arnold on a nightly basis.

I fear for life under the next governor. Meg Whitman has never had to deal with a majority of the workforce opposed to her ideas, and Jerry Brown ("Governor Moonbeam, Part Deux") has no reason not to give the store away. It will be like the last eight years, only more so.

FLS - are you admitting the CA state government is utterly corrupt and beholden to the public employee union? Well Jehovah it my witness! I never would have thought the day you would EVER say something bad against a blessed union.

I suspect that I have spent more time in Colorado over my lifetime than you (my father is nearing 90 years there now, and his father homesteaded there almost a century ago).

There are places where the Hispanics do form an underclass. But overall, it is nothing like Arizona or southern Nevada.

One thing that it does have that New Mexico has is a large group of people of Spanish descent who mostly predate Whites. A good example of them are the Salazar brothers. One is the Sec. of Interior (in that white hat of his), and the other the Congressman representing the Western Slope. Are they Hispanic? It depends on your definition.

Tancredo represented probably the most conservative district in Colorado. I just don't see it having all that many Hispanics, in comparison to others, such as DeGette's Denver. They just can't afford to live in his district.

Also, I have to say that while I oppose open borders, I, and most of those I know outside his district, were always a bit embarrassed about him representing Colorado. DeGette is just as whacked out and embarrassing, but she represents Denver, and follows in the shoes of Patsy Schroeder. He just made the Republican party in Colorado look a lot more whacked out than they really are (esp. given how many great Senators we sent to Washington over the last 30 years).

Meghan McCain, so disappointed to see that you have placed your own selfish agenda over the good of the country. Your comments are deceptive. You assessment of the tea party movement is incorrect. I have a challenge for you. Live with no family money for 6 months, that includes your slanderous book upcoming and see how you feel then. How pathetic, TO WITNESS HANOI JANE COME ALIVE IN MEGHAN MCCAIN. LAY OFF OF THE BUDWEISER GIRLFRIEND!!!!! You say people who don't agree with you are "smoking" something???? You drink WAY TOO MUCH to criticize any of the rest of us for anything to do with YOUR lack of sobriety.

Robert Gibbs showed the words “hope” and “change” on his hand as he started his daily briefing with reporters on Tuesday.

Many in the room, where President Barack Obama had spoken just moments before about the need for bipartisanship, groaned at the political shot.

Leaving aside its lameness — stepping on the President’s message, and demonstrating, once again, that Robert Gibbs is never intentionally funny — it really seems to me that bringing up the whole “hope and change” schtick nowadays isn’t doing much for the White House, but rather is simply reminding people of how the original promise of this Administration has failed to bear fruit.

Since a number of commenters here don't understand sarcasm, wit, humor, or irony, let me be clear

In my 3:05 PM I am not making fun of Palin & I don't have a "fixation" on her sexuality as Fred correctly notes about Andy @9:05 AM here. My sarcasm is directed at Sarah’s critics who are mostly boobs! (OOPS, a Freudian slip?)

Tancredo represented probably the most conservative district in Colorado. I just don't see it having all that many Hispanics, in comparison to others, such as DeGette's Denver.

I don't see Bruce's point. Denver's where Tancredo grew up, where Hispanics filled the bottom rungs of the ladder. Moving to where only whites live is a form of compensation, as is discarding his Catholic faith -- seldom practiced by Anglos west of Saint Louis.

McCain's use of the word "innate" refers to the idea Tancredo proposed, not Tancredo's beliefs or worldview.

Gawd is this dumb. Is her context really that hard to understand? "Innate" probably wasn't as accurate an adjective as "inherent" would have been. But it seems that if someone was more concerned with substance than with appearances and nit-picky word choice details, then they would have easily got the point.

Welcome to a world where the benefit of context is selectively applied only to the political right*: The World of Althousiana.

In any event, this could be stated even more simply. McCain is using the word "innate" in reference to an idea, and not in reference to anything pertaining to Tancredo personally. (Although I wouldn't mind if she did).

How many boxes of Chablis does it take to not recognize the difference?

"One thing that it does have that New Mexico has is a large group of people of Spanish descent who mostly predate Whites."

Albuquerque celebrated 300 years a couple years ago. Collections were taken up here over 230-some years ago, and aid sent to the colonists fighting the Revolutionary War.

What isn't at all to be taken for granted, though, not here, not in California, not anywhere, is that people who are ethnic Hispanic are pro-illegal immigration.

The error in viewing Hispanics with a family History of over 300 years in the area as a homogeneous group with those who have arrived illegally last week, ought to be apparent with only a little thought.

I don't even believe that public schools ought to teach civics. There is a clear conflict of interest involved.

Really?

This comment is not to mock, Synova, not at all. It's that your comment stands out, and in multiple ways. It bucks the flavors of conventional thought pretty much all across the spectrum. I find that very interesting--and by that I mean: very interesting.

Is this a long-standing conclusion, or one of more recent vintage (you get to define both long-standing and recent, of course)? I'd sincerely appreciate hearing, and sincerely would like to listen to, an expansion of your thoughts.

I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.

"Contrary to fls, Tancredo is a marginal figure in the Tea Party movement"

And yet he was chosen to kick off the National Tea Party Convention.

The "National Tea Party Convention" is a marginal EVENT in the Tea Party movement. I doubt any more than a tiny minority of Partiers even knew it was happening in the first place. It is a movement, not an organized political group. :)

Of course I'd also expect your lack of nostalgia for public education to extend back for--***at least***--50 years.

And, yes, while I appreciate support for homeschooling, extra credit is only given for those **who actually have done it or who are actually doing it** from grades 1 and up. Anything else is just theory, either just so far or forever. The proof is in the pudding. Recipes mean nothing.

Don't get me wrong: I do appreciate the critical importance of 0-6. (Really, don't; really, I do.) But don't let us confuse even the most excellent of parenting/teaching in those earliest years with the bucking of the system later on--or the different nature of the profound responsibility that comes with that bucking.

If you happen to see this, reader... yes, I did homeschool my kids. I think that I probably didn't do near as good of a job of it as I could have done but I resist letting myself second guess that and start thinking that they'd have been better to go to school. Either way, they miss something, right? And I don't know what they missed by not being in regular school. I'm very pleased with the character they show and I know that they avoided abuse and the systemic harassment that can happen in a school setting. I'm also very pleased with each of their abilities to think critically about complicated concepts and to stand by their own opinions.

My son home schooled to graduation. My daughters are transitioning to high school.

Transitioning to high school is difficult (and my youngest to middle school) because they don't tolerate the bull-sh*t well and don't understand why they should have to submit it. They're used to having more autonomy and control and *say* in their lives.

They don't like being treated like kids.

The girls *do* want to go to school though. So I remind them that dealing with the BS is just something they have to do.

All in all I think that moving cross country a number of times was more disruptive and was a worse decision. That's the one I sort of wish I could take back.